Bug#625357: jigit: ftbfs with gcc-4.6 -Werror

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

severity 625357 normal
retitle 625357 gcc -Wunused-but-set-variable should not be implied by -Wall (?)
tags 625357 = upstream moreinfo
quit

Hi again,

Steve McIntyre wrote:

> I'll remove the -Werror to stop gcc breaking the build here, but I
> definitely believe that gcc is doing the wrong thing here.
> Technically, yes - the variables are set but unused. However, this is
> a far higher level of pedantry than is warranted for -Wall. The code
> being complained about is perfectly valid, typical of the defensive
> programming pattern of "initialise all variables".

To clarify: here's a demo of the behavior of gcc-4.4.

 $ program_one='int main(void) { int x = 5; return 0; }'
 $ program_two='int main(void) { int x; x = 5; return 0; }'
 $ echo "$program_one" | gcc-4.4 -Wall -x c -
 <stdin>: In function ‘main’:
 <stdin>:1: warning: unused variable ‘x’
 $ echo "$program_two" | gcc-4.4 -Wall -x c -

So imho gcc before v4.6 is just fundamentally confused.  Which means
there are a number of ways one could go with this.  Do you mean:

 A. Unused variables are not a big deal, and they belong in -Wextra,
    not -Wall.

 B. New warnings are a pain in the neck and should go in -Wextra
    during a transition period.

 C. The idiom

	ssize_t unused;
	/*
	 * Yes, there might be an error, dear gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE,
	 * but we want to ignore it.
	 */
	unused = write(...);

   in place of, say,

	/* loop on partial writes and EINTR */
	xwrite(...);

   is good style and the -Wunused-but-set-variable warning is
   fundamentally misguided.

 D. The idiom

	int x;
	int y;

	... ordinary code ...
	#if SOMETIMES
	... code to set and use x ...
	#endif

    in place of

	#if SOMETIMES
	int x;
	#endif
	int y;

	... ordinary code ...
	#if SOMETIMES
	... code to set and use x ...
	#endif

    or

	int y;

	... ordinary code ...
	#if SOMETIMES
	{
		int x;
		... code to set and use x ...
	}
	#endif

    is good style and the longstanding -Wunused-variable warning is
    fundamentally misguided.

 D. Something else?

Sorry for the lack of clarity before.
Jonathan